A new policy brief finds that the closing of five nuclear reactors is impeding America’s ability to reduce carbon emissions. The illustration above represents the status of US nuclear power plants, including recently retired and now retired facilities, as of September 2013. Credit: US Energy Information Administration, Wikimedia Commons.

New data suggests that America’s efforts, however earnest, to make its energy cleaner and greener are actually impeding its ability to reduce harmful carbon emissions.

“Losing more of our existing nuclear fleet will make it that much tougher to meet our carbon reduction goals,” says C2ES President Eileen Claussen in a press release. “We need to keep ramping up renewables, but they can’t meet our need for reliable power 24/7. Nuclear is a baseload source and it’s carbon-free—two things we need.”

Sixteen natural gas combined cycle power plants would be needed to replace the energy generated from the five nuclear reactors retired since October 2012, according to the brief. Those 16 plants would provide baseload power—as well as a whopping 12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. Renewables like wind (7,600 turbines) and solar (3.7 million solar rooftop panels) could get the job done without increasing carbon emissions, but couldn’t provide baseload power for the amount of electricity needed. According to C2ES, electricity accounts for close to a third of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

“The best way to advance low-carbon solutions, including nuclear power, is to put a price on carbon,’’ Claussen says. “A comprehensive national approach is unlikely any time soon. But if well designed, the carbon standards EPA will soon propose for existing power plants could drive market-based programs at the state and regional level that could help maintain the existing nuclear fleet.”

If you’d like to read the brief in full, click here. To view an accompanying infographic, head here.